|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 1, 2015 8:17:36 GMT
My answer changes over time. Problem is there are two different fc bugs. One is 'stuck bids' which always results in a shortfall, usually round pounds. The other one is double sales, which can affect you either way depending on whether you are buyer or seller. The latter bug messes up pence too, usually. Right now I am £16 up on one account, and my partner, last time I looked, was about £40 down.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 1, 2015 11:24:52 GMT
Only two well known bugs - could be more, and I do not assume that higher FC total is an error in my favour - could be that the earnings figure is low. The only thing certain is that it is an absolute and disgraceful shambles.
Following a recent visit of Betty Bot, costing £80, my FC total remains nearly £40 higher than the calculation result, and the sty-companion's is now, very recently, nearly £100 higher. The overall problem must be huge, there must be a team of Betty Bots (the Botettes).
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 1, 2015 17:26:05 GMT
I have a feeling I'm going to know the answer to this. Is the only source of transaction statements (and specifically deposits/withdrawls) the MONTHLY statements ? There is no way to select and download a report between two dates and no statement for e.g. 1 year period ?? Running through ~ 40 monthly statements is going to be a tad tedious and potentially error prone.
Edit: I've just done a net earnings versus total on platform check and whereas the pennies match, the £10's don't (by £10 in fact). I would be staggered if I'd ever tx'd in or out anything other than at least multiples of £100. So looks like I may be out: just not a clue as to whether that is by £10 or some other other number.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 1, 2015 18:55:47 GMT
You already know the answer to the first question, BB. They never make it easy for people to check their account or analyse their transactions.
If you are sure that you have never deposited or withdrawn anything less than whole hundreds then the £10 is an error - could be just one or the net of more of course. There is a poll/survey which would appreciate your input, if not yet done.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Feb 1, 2015 19:24:52 GMT
Umm. Well 40 downloaded statements later, aggregated into by year spreadsheets, couple of false starts on filters (when did they stop always showing a deposit as a deposit and instead as an ePDQ via API ... and why do I always leave the last 'a' off of 'withdrawal'), I've determined that contrary to expectation I have made precisely one withdrawl (sorry withdrawal) and one deposit (sorry, EPDQ via EPDS*****) which was not in multiples of £100.
My numbers tally precisely. I will vote accordingly. And next time I get the urge to check my numbers because others are experiencing issues I'll drop my curiosity and go off and do some thing more interesting (like watching paint dry).
|
|
|
|
Post by GSV3MIaC on Feb 1, 2015 20:07:48 GMT
One of the problems is that all statements are subject to change, even a year later. 8>.
Since the change can be deleting a line, you'll never know unless you keep archived copies.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 1, 2015 20:38:37 GMT
Umm. Well 40 downloaded statements later, aggregated into by year spreadsheets, couple of false starts on filters (when did they stop always showing a deposit as a deposit and instead as an ePDQ via API ... and why do I always leave the last 'a' off of 'withdraw al'), I've determined that contrary to expectation I have made precisely one withdrawl (sorry withdrawal) and one deposit (sorry, EPDQ via EPDS*****) which was not in multiples of £100. My numbers tally precisely. I will vote accordingly. And next time I get the urge to check my numbers because others are experiencing issues I'll drop my curiosity and go off and do some thing more interesting (like watching paint dry). Your check has been a very valuable control because it demonstrates how an account can and should be maintained by FC. The formula worked exactly over a long period on a busy account (presumably, but Betty Bot may have reconciled you recently without your knowing - there is no record). It shows that the errors are errors. And now that you know that the numbers below the hundreds should differ by £10, if you keep to round numbers you will not have to do it all again.
|
|
wysiati
Member of DD Central
Posts: 397
Likes: 86
|
Post by wysiati on Feb 2, 2015 22:43:56 GMT
The deposits and and withdrawals are matters of fact and record. Now that the accrued interest has been removed, the FC total must by any logic equal the net capital plus the all time earnings, and if not there must errors in numbers controlled wholly by FC (assuming of course that the lender has used the interface as intended). I understand that your account (Wysiati) is very long standing, large and very active (ie you have been a very good FC customer) but that some of your issues of reconciliation may go back a distance in time which maybe FC cannot cope with. My own account dates to mid 1012 and has been large and active, but always operated by the trotters and I never had a reconciliation problem before the issue was raised (partly or first by yourself?) on this site. After that the accrued interest was removed from the total making the reconciliation more obvious and easy and I rather think that was the time at which Betty Bot was set loose and the routine manual 'corrections' were started. Since then the problem has become much worse - it frequently happens to me even though I do everything manually - and errors seem to expand in type and quantity as the database is stressed by volume. FC will have a good idea of the size of the problem (since we understand that the final intervention is manual) and must be very concerned. They will try to keep a lid on it until they have a general solution. But I think they will resolve more recent cases like JP's where they should now have the tools to sort the problem. If JP has lost money then starting with an email with evidence and then escalating through customer service, management, compliance officer etc is the way to go, I think. Account age by itself would unfortunately not explain it - oh that it were so simple. I have an account <3 years old, manual operation, previously (if not still) less active than some of the other participants here I would imagine in terms of capital turn and the shortfall regularly goes into £ 4-figures. That is permanent cash drag worth a meaningful % of the account upon which I could/should be earning 15-20%pa. FC is trying to claim on the one hand that the 'net earnings' figure has integrity and is correct, and also that the FC total is based on all underlying transactions and is correct, but in many cases the two simply do not reconcile and the platform's claims cannot both be correct. This issue has been ongoing/on-and-off with customer services for >2 years now and I am really thinking that enough is enough.
|
|
blender
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,719
Likes: 4,272
|
Post by blender on Feb 2, 2015 23:05:07 GMT
Wysiati, from the way the discrepancies thread is going it seems to me that system integrity is shot. What was anecdotal is now becoming, thanks to Max M, more of an analysis and scaling of the problem(s) - and it is getting scary.
|
|
